[Talk-transit] Naming a rail tunnel

Frankie Roberto frankie at frankieroberto.com
Sun Sep 20 14:12:25 BST 2009

The bridge and tunnel relations seem to be in widespread use, despite it
being a 'proposal', so don't worry about using it.

As to breaking the ways - you don't need to worry about that from a routing
perspective, as most of the train routes use relations [1] anyway.

As to the question of what the actual name tag of the way should be, I think
I'd err towards name=Box Tunnel, as that's the more specific name for that
actual stretch of track. I've done the same with viaducts and bridges.
"Great Western Main Line" could be considered a 'railway route' [2], and
could thus eventually be a relation of its own.

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dtrain
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route=railway


2009/9/20 d f <fac63tempt at yahoo.com>

> Hi
> The famous Box Tunnel on the GWR Paddington to Bristol line had been name
> tagged as name= Box Tunnel.
> http://osm.org/go/euksKneA
> Am  I right in thinking that would break the ways for routing purposes?
> GWR->GWR->Box Tunnel->GWR etc...
> I changed it to tunnel_name= Box Tunnel, but I'm not sure if this is
> correct.
> I saw there's a proposal for using relations:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Bridges_and_Tunnels
> but like many proposals it seems to be going for over 18 months with no
> resolution.
> If this is the way to go about it, are then any examples I could view?
> Thanks
> Dave F.
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-transit mailing list
> Talk-transit at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit

Frankie Roberto
Experience Designer, Rattle
0114 2706977
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-transit/attachments/20090920/0780a245/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-transit mailing list